Reply by: shmiley1 Posted: Mar. 19, 2:38:31 PM Points: 2406
Link didnt work for me so i couldnt watch the vid.
Bag and possession limit for lakers on granby is 4 total. If he caught and kept more than 4 lakers that would put him over limit. Below SM spillway would still be considered granby waters if im not mistaken but not 100% on that. Keep in mind rainbows, browns, and kokes are in a different category and have seperate limits.
I really hate poachers, if indeed this person is breaking the rules and showing evidence of that in his videos, he should expect to be ratted out. I will try to view that vid from a PC when i get time. Again i havnt seen the vid but if i see any poaching going on (anywhere) i get game enforcement involved immediately.
Reply by: Goosehunter82 Posted: Mar. 19, 2:43:14 PM Points: 25051
Short answer is no. Technically once the water leaves the spillway the water is no longer part of lake Granby. At that point it's the Colorado River which has a bag and possession limit of 2 trout. Doesn't specify species.
If he were to have fished Williams fork and granby in the same day, I would assume that he would want to follow the more conservative rule. In this case, possessing more than 2 fish would appear to be illegal.
Reply by: Goosehunter82 Posted: Mar. 19, 2:44:59 PM Points: 25051
COLORADO RIVER - GARFIELD, EAGLE, GRAND, MESA (MAPS, PAGES 15, 19, 27)GOLD MEDAL WATERS FROM FRASER RIVER TO TROUBLESOME CREEK.FROM LAKE GRANBY DAM DOWNSTREAM TO THE U.S. 40 BRIDGE APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES WEST OF HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS:1. Bag and possession limit for trout is 2.
Reply by: shmiley1 Posted: Mar. 19, 2:47:18 PM Points: 2406
Was this taking place below granby and not below shadow? I assumed shadow, but GH is correct for below granby... Completely different regs there but laker possesion limit should still be 4 reguardless.
Reply by: lackskill Posted: Mar. 19, 3:13:29 PM Points: 2007
Those posts from GH above were actually supposed to be from me. He uses my computer from time to time and I was accidentally logged into his account when I posted.
I'm not that familiar with the area so I just assumed it was below the dam, but after looking at it with GH it's indeed below shadow mountain. After looking at the regs again, it looks like statewide regs apply to that body of water.
Reply by: Tubejig Posted: Mar. 19, 3:23:49 PM Points: 434
Thanks lackskill, from what I have read from this thread and regulations, it appears you are able to keep 4 trout between Shadow Mountain Spillway and Granby, then catch a limit of 4 lakers from Granby Reservoir. This thread was not meant to hate on the video or the guy catching, only to clear up bag and possession limits on that particular location.
Reply by: Tubejig Posted: Mar. 19, 5:39:23 PM Points: 434
Diggin, I dont care if he's upset or not. This site is for information and he published a public video of himself catching fish. As you can see I was not the only one who had questions, If you dont like this post dont read it, its that simple. If anything I got him more views for his video!
Reply by: skiman Posted: Mar. 19, 8:42:41 PM Points: 1197
I just watched the video, and aside from the question of a legal limit, I have to ask myself, are these two gentlemen really as "professional" as they claim to be? Their handling of fish was atrocious and certainly unpleasant. Ripping the hook from the fish and tossing it on the rocks for a release was pathetic. They reminded me of neadrethal meat hunters who have no respect for their quarry. Subscribe to their video site...I think not! (Rant over.)
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 19, 9:56:09 PM Points: 47
Didn't get to see the video. But if you look at the regs on page 3 it states that the possession limit is 8 trout and includes Lakers, rainbows, browns, cutbows, cut throat, Brook, splake, grayling, Arctic char. You can posses an additional 10 brookies under 8 inches. So if you already have 8 fish of the above species in your freezer, you cannot keep any of the above species. Daily bag limits are specific to the fishery, so if the guy had no fish that he caught in a previous day, he could keep 4 Lakers and 4 trout(browns, rainbow etc..... Trout limits are in aggregate meaning You can't keep 4 of each type. For example, if you have 3 bows you can only keep one brown. Each body of water has different daily bag limits, but possesion limits are statewide.
Take Green mountain for example with the daily bag limit of 8 lakers. If you keep 8 Lakers you can't have an additional 4 rainbows. 6 Lakers and two rainbows is ok, or 4 and 4 is ok. 6 rainbows and 2 Lakers is not, because the daily bag limit on bows is 4, However if you had 8 fish in your freezer all caught on different days you could have 6 rainbows and two Lakers or even 8 rainbows. Another example, If you went to Granby, caught 4 Lakers and froze them then on a second day caught 4 Lakers and froze them your cool. If you went to Green mountain and kept 8 and froze them then went to Granby the next day, you cannot keep any fish untill you eat the ones in your freezer. So basically if you want to keep fish everyday. Eat up!............I hope I don't just confuse the hell out anybody.
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 19, 10:35:57 PM Points: 47
The guy needs a lesson on unhooking and releasing fish And he did brake the law by filling his friends daily bag limit on trout. He had already kept 4. His friend only had 3, he kept a fifth in order to take 8 trout between the two of them and that is illegal. You can donate fish to another licence holder, but not if you are exceeding your daily bag limit. So he could have giving his 4th fish away to his buddy, but keeping that fifth fish and giving it his friend lands him in hot water, his buddy on the other hand is in the clear he caught three and was givin a fourth and that is legal,. The guys friend could have kept 4 and then recieved a donation of another 4 and is legal because he is within possesion limit. But again after giving away 4 fish, a guy cannot continue to keep fish that day, he filled his daily bag limit once and that's all he is allowed regardless of giving them away.
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 20, 3:40:41 AM Points: 47
I was assuming the daily bag limit below the spillway was 4, that's what i get for not reading every post! Looks like this "pro" and his buddy could both get busted by exceeding the daily bag limit for that body of water.
Reply by: shmiley1 Posted: Mar. 20, 10:00:16 AM Points: 2406
Watched the video...
1st off these guys are far from pros. In fact id consider them an embarrassment to the trade. Extremely poor fish handling, party fishing, as well as claiming to be pros when their video shows their lack of knowlege at every turn.
As for who would rat them out...i for 1 have zero issues turning in anyone abusing the rules. Just ask the guys who were reported and detained by a civilian until game enforcement arrived at that spillway a few years back for possessing 2 5 gallon buckets full of those little browns and bows. They got in ALOT of trouble.. Fines per fish over the limit. Or the guys on grand lake that not only had more than their limit but also a 35 inch laker which is in the protected slot there. They were also detained at the ramp by a,civilian until game enforcement arrived and were cited for all of their illegal harvest.
Our rangers cant be everywhere all the time and rely on us anglers to do our part in protecting our resources. If you see something you know is wrong, you should be reporting it immediatly.
Mostly what i saw is some idiots who had a decent day or 2 and think they are just that pro, when in reality they are not. Just as ive complained about on here.. When you post something in public showing poor form or rule breaking it can do alot more harm than you would think. Nowadays, even here on fxr its become more about hey look how cool/awsome i am vs shareing,educating, or helping ppl improve their own game. Just sad imo.
I will see to it that this video is shared with CPW altho i doubt anything will be done at this point.
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 20, 10:30:38 AM Points: 47
Lackskill Daily bag limit is 4 from Granby. Possession limit is 8 and is statewide. The spillway is a separate body water, so if they do not have any fish in the freezer, they legally could have kept 6 each that day, 2 trout from the spillway and 4 lakers from granby. Then they could have gone to yet another body of water and kept 2 more fish. For a total of 8 fish in possession. Again they could do this only if they have no fish in the freezer. If they already had 8 trout/lakers in the freezer, then by law they could keep 0 fish that day no matter where they caught the fish. Page 3 of the regulations explains this.
Reply by: lackskill Posted: Mar. 20, 10:48:09 AM Points: 2007
Fordo, that screenshot is straight from the regs and clearly states a possession limit that varies from the statewide rule. The statewide rules apply unless otherwise stated under specific water body regs.
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 20, 5:15:01 PM Points: 47
One more time, if a guy has 8 fish in his freezer that are of the trout species including lakers, grayling, and Arctic Char he cannot keep anymore fish from anywhere period. It is statewide.
Let's use an example. If a guy decided to fish Green mountain in the morning and he keeps 8 lakers which is the daily limit, and then he decides to go fish Granby in the afternoon he cannot keep any fish from Granby. if he does it the other way around, and keeps 4 from Granby, he could only keep 4 from GM. The most fish you can have in your freezer is 8 and that is statewide. You can't have 8 from GM and 4 from Granby. That's a total of 12 fish and that is illegal.
Reply by: dallasdb Posted: Mar. 20, 5:15:28 PM Points: 203
Just spoke to a wildlife officer at Granby.
This is a summary of our conversation.
The Granby specific trout limit of 4 lake trout does not count towards your state limit of other trout like rainbows or browns.
A person could take 4 lake trout and 4 other trout out of Granby but not 8 lake trout. This special rule was put in place to encourage harvest of smaller lake trout out of Granby.
The spillway below Granby is NOT part of Granby it is part of the Colorado river.
The limit on the spillway is subject to statewide regulations. The lake trout out of Granby do not count towards the statewide regulations.
The only violation in the video is that the guy gave his buddy a fish putting him over the limit. Doesn't matter that his buddy was with him. If you catch your limit and you are a better angler than your buddy, you cannot catch another and give it to them. You can keep fishing but have to release the fish.
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 20, 6:33:39 PM Points: 47
I had some more time to look at this and I see what lackskill is trying to tell me. They are allowed to keep 4 lakers in addition to 4 trout. I was wrong on the infraction # 1 As long as they did not have more than two of the listed species on page 3 in the freezer.
I will stick to my statement that the 8 fish(species listed on page 3) possession limit is statewide wide. Unless you have 10 kokanne, and 8 Brook trout under 8 inches, you are only allowed to posses 8, no matter where they were caught.
Dalls they kept 2 over the limit, so they had 2 infractions.
Reply by: shmiley1 Posted: Mar. 20, 8:40:28 PM Points: 2406
Absolutely correct lack.
I dont know why even try sometimes... I dont know how to be any more clear about this.
On GRANBY lakers have seperate limits from ANYTHING else.
Ive guided on granby for years and have actually had this discussion many times with clients that wanted to keep more than 4. Some have even argued that i can let them take my limit in addition to theirs because i wasnt keeping any fish. I know the rules and take pride in respecting our resources and setting a good example doing it. Im also not at all known for stateing anything as fact that isnt. As far as granby goes my word should be good. Btw good luck convincing the ranger 4 of your 8 lakers in the cooler came from GM while you are sitting on granby.... Just sayn.. Lol
FWIW, i dont think its really a big deal the guys technicaly took 1 fish too many like that...im sure many here are guilty of similiar but its still against the rules and i dont condone it. The bigger issue to me that he did it on video and posted it in public. To me anyone in the buisness or trying to be should be obligated to setting a good example for others to follow. The handling of those fish, tossing them several feet into shallow water and basicaly saying you can just ingore the regs when it suits you is a far cry from that imo. Aside from the regs questions, its the only reason i bothered to comment.
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 20, 10:35:26 PM Points: 47
Im not trying to argue with you Smily, you are sort of taking an argumentitive approach here. I told lackskill I understood what he was I saying I guess I used should I have told you that as a well, I get it so I I don't I understand your comment I about why you even try.
I do the GM/Granby one day double hit all the time and normally only take 4 from GM if I'm heading for Granby. If the game warden knows what's up they could emmediatly identify a GM laker vs. a Granby laker. And besides I don't think hardly anybody would take thier GM lakers out on the ice with them on Granby. In sure smily already knows this but I'd like to share with anyone else. Lakers under 20 inches from GM are not as fat and healthy as Granby lakers because GM does not have mysis shrimp and they must rely on zoo plankton untill they can get big enough to make the transfer to other fish and become Piscavouras. GM lakers are not only skinnier when they are young, they are pale in color. The meat is much more pale as well. If you gut a GM laker and open the stomach you find only green mush. GM is very rich in zooplankton due to the Hay fields and cattle ranches in the blue River valley between Dillon and GM. The agriculture feeds lots of phosferous and nitrates into the water which is what zoo plankton thrives on. GM has tons of small fish that do well because they have lots of zooplankton to eat but lakers in GM grow very slow untill they get big enough to eat other fish, zooplankton does not have hardly any fats and proteins. Mysis shrimp is rich in fats and proteins.... So when you gut a Granby laker under 20" and open the stomach you will almost always find shrimp.Every GM laker under 20 will have green mush which is zooplankton. Granby Lakers almost always have nice red fins with white edges due to the high nutrients in Mysis , and at GM you can barely see the white edges on the fins because zooplanktonrow is reletivly poor in nutrients. Granby has low levels of zooplankton because The water coming into Granby is very clean, some of it is even treated. The levels of zooplankton are way down, plus that's what Mysis eat. Granby has lots of big fish compared to GM, but the big ones in Granby are really lean. GM big Lakers tend to be real fat. This is because the zooplankton supports the small fish, and we all know big lakers eat small fish. Granbys big Lakers don't get as many small fish to eat because the lack of zooplankton makes it tougher for small fish such as rainbows and kokanne to thrive. Combine that with more competition for food because the ratio of big fish to small fish in Granby is higher than GM and you end up with skinny big fish at Granby, whereas The fewer big ones in GM are much fatter. So in short,. GM and Granby Lakers have separate diets, and that makes it very easy to tell the difference between a Granby laker and. GM laker.
Reply by: esoxrocks Posted: Mar. 21, 8:55:03 AM Points: 2371
In reading this thread, and then the regs (while not doubting for a minute that Shmiley is correct) I can certainly see how it wouldn't be immediately apparent to someone reading the regs how the special limits work. I mean, if there is an area specific rule that operates outside of the general rules...it should be specifically called-out as such. Frankly when I read this I also come away with the definitive conclusion of ..... whaaaat?
1. Ice-fishing shelters must be portable.
2. Bag and possession limit for lake trout is 4.
3. Gaffs and tail snares prohibited.
4. Jan. 1–Aug. 31, bag and possession limit for trout (except lake trout) and kokanee is 4, singly or in aggregate.
5. Sept. 1–Dec. 31, bag and possession limit for trout (except lake trout) is 4, singly or in aggregate.
6. Sept. 1–Dec. 31, bag and possession limit for kokanee is 10.
7. Snagging kokanee permitted Sept. 1–Dec. 31 except in Columbine Bay upstream of Twin Creek inlet.
On #2 - IMO simply adding something like: "this limit is separate, and in addition to the bag and possession limits on other species" would go a long way to eliminate confusion.
Reply by: shmiley1 Posted: Mar. 21, 1:01:56 PM Points: 2406
Im sorry, i agree the wording in alot of our regs can be confusing. Also alot of areas and boundrys can be confusing as well. My feeling is if you are unsure then eigther just dont do it or get confirmation from the governing agency if its that important to you. Why push it? Is it really that big of a deal to keep a couple of more fish today? Or to not use barbed hooks or bait in an area that it is allowed?
I dont intend come off arguemenative but i want to ensure the correct information is given. Randy, we have hung out, you know im VERY direct. As for " i dont know why try sometimes"... Again im known for alot of things...giving out incorrect information to the public eye is not 1 of them. Get in touch with me, we should get togather over here for ice out! You are welcome to fish with me anytime.
As we nit pick this guys video... I saw 2 infractions... #1 you hear 1 guy saying how he foul hooked ( snagged) x number of the last few fish. Any fish not caught in the inside of the mouth is technicaly considered a snagged fish and must be released immediately. Can not be harvested. I bet very few if any of you caught this 1... I did and so did the local CPW officer viewing it. That makes me proud of our officers up here. #2 was the party fishing. Giving the buddy a fish after he already caught and kept his limit.
Yes, CPW has seen this video and the guy will most likely be contacted, probably even cited but thats for them to handle. I didnt see any of said snagged fish in #1, only heard him say it but there was both visual and vocal evidence on #2,so pretty tough time backing up on that 1.
I also recieved clarification on the river/ lake boundry between shadow and granby and thought id share that. There is no permanent boundry line between the area considered the colorado river and the start of lake granby. The line is where the water stops flowing, so it will varry depending on water levels and flows. The lake starts where the water stops flowing. This is how im told our officers determine the border.
I spent a good amount of time discussing this stuff with 1 of the officers that are here enforcing these rules and he contacted me btw. I feel very fortunate to have people like him who would take the time to step in and clear the air on his own like that up here looking out for our resources. BIG tip of the hat from me guys!
Reply by: Smelly Posted: Mar. 21, 1:38:32 PM Points: 13283
I have a question here. I watched this video and a second one of them at Gross Res. Watched the guy cull one laker for a bigger one. If I remember correct isn't that also against the law ? I was always under the impression that once you "Possess " a fish . Put in in a bucket, livewell, basket, or on a stringer. That is your keeper fish. You cannot exchange that fish if you happen to catch a better one. If I'm correct, he broke the rules there too.
Reply by: shmiley1 Posted: Mar. 21, 1:57:27 PM Points: 2406
Correct you are. Culling fish is illegal in the entire state of colorado. Once you put it in the livewell, on a stringer, toss it on the bank or anything other than IMEDIATELY releasing it, then counts as part of your daily bag/possesion limits.
I almost feel bad for the guy with how far it has all gone. Ive said it soo many times here, you have to becareful what you post in public. Be it, not willing to accept critisizm because you had your D.beaters shoved through the gills of that laker, the huge stripers on a stringer,or being wrong when telling others the laws are, or even getting busted for breaking the law with your own camera. When you put it out there you open the door for so many things...be sure you are ready to accept that.
I think there is a nuiance to that. Culling would only be illegal if you already had your limit in the livewell.
To illustrate, if I have one fish in the livewell and catch a bigger one. I can let the smaller one go out of my livewell and keep the bigger one. The way I read it the act of culling isn't illegal, its just that if a fish is not released immediately, it counts towards your daily bag limit.
Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Mar. 21, 2:28:11 PM Points: 2904
I think what he is saying is that as long as you haven't put your limit in the livewell you can let one go. A couple different scenarios...
For example, you catch a big perch and think you are on them, so you put it in your live well. You don't catch another perch, so you don't want to clean just this one perch for dinner, it is alive and strong in the live well, so you let him go. This isn't illegal
Another example. You catch a 24" walleye. You put it in your livewell for dinner. You catch 10 more walleye, but they are all released immediately. the next walleye is 20". You decide you would rather keep the 20" walleye and let the bigger one go. Technically illegal? Ethically ok?
Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Mar. 21, 2:39:12 PM Points: 2904
Go one further. You catch a 12" trout and put it in the livewell. You then catch a 14" trout, keep it and let the 12" go. Then you catch a 16" trout, keep it and release the 14" one. You see where I am going with this. Next is an 18", and you release the 16". This is 4 fish that have been in your livewell. Is this legal?
Now you catch a 27" trout, the fish of your lifetime. If you replace the 18" fish, and keep the 27" one, you have definitely broken the law.
Reply by: Tubejig Posted: Mar. 21, 2:48:48 PM Points: 434
Smelly, I too watched the Gross video, He actually culled fish twice, once at the 13:40 mark and another at the 18:43 mark. Disgraceful how he drags the fish up on the rocks then releases them, especially given the fact they have a net. This is stated in the regs.
DAILY BAG LIMIT Maximum number of fish you can take in a day, regardless of what you do with them that day. » Fish caught and placed on a stringer, in a container or live well, or not returned to the same water immediately count in your daily bag or possession limit. » Fish released immediately are not part of the limit.
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 21, 3:07:26 PM Points: 47
Dallas, they appear to be at the shadow spill way and that falls under the Colorado River regs, so the limit is only 2 each, they walked out of there with 8 trout and that's probably the worst infraction.
Jeremy let's make an ice off trip happen for sure. My StarCraft is nowhere near as sweet as your new to you Crestliner, but if you want a day off from running your boat to just kick back and fish I'll bring the boat and beer.
Reply by: skiman Posted: Mar. 21, 7:38:06 PM Points: 1197
If I understand it correctly, ANY fish put in a livewell is part of your bag limit, and cannot be replaced with a larger one. If fish are released immediately, you can continue fishing until you achieve your daily bag limit. I know that isn't always the case, (think bass or walleye tournaments,) but is still a violation of Colorado regulations. My 2 cents!
Reply by: wingman13 Posted: Mar. 21, 10:02:41 PM Points: 635
Shiverfix I disagree with you. Once you place a fish in your livewell, it IS YOURS, and counts against your limit. You MAY NOT release it back into the water (legally) under any circumstances. Now ethically, I totally agree & understand your perch example, but as I understand it, it's still against the law.
Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Mar. 22, 8:54:06 AM Points: 2904
wingman, counting towards the daily bag is understood, but I cannot find anything that would prohibit me from returning a live fish to the water. If it is dead I could see it falling under the wasting of game rule, but if it is alive this wouldn't be relevant. Is there a rule somewhere I am missing?
Reply by: skiman Posted: Mar. 22, 3:54:16 PM Points: 1197
From the 2017 regulations... "Fish caught and placed on a stringer, in a container or live well, or not returned to the same water immediately count in your daily bag or possession limit." "Fish released immediately are not part of the limit."
It's pretty clear to me that if you keep a fish and put it In a live well, it counts toward your daily bag/possession limit, and cannot be released at a later time. For it to not count, it must be released IMMEDIATELY.
Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Mar. 22, 4:13:05 PM Points: 2904
skiman, I don't disagree that any fish in the live well counts towards your daily bag, or that releasing a fish after you have hit your daily bag to keep another one would be illegal. But if you have only put one fish in your live well, and decide later not to keep it, I don't see anything in the regulations that says this is not allowed. I can't imagine that CPW would force someone to keep a fish if they decided to let it go, as long as it was alive and healthy.
As an example, when my wife caught her first bass a few years ago, she at first was adamant that she wanted to keep it. But shortly after we put it in the stringer she and I discussed that is was a female with eggs, and she changed her mind and wanted to release her. We took her off the stringer, revived her (it hadn't been very long) and she swam away strong. We didn't keep any other fish that day. I can't imagine this would be illegal.
Your interpretation is 100% correct that a fish put in a live well counts towards your daily bag limit. However, you are inferring from the language that once a fish is in the livewell, it has to stay in your livewell. That isn't what the language says. It says that a fish put in the live well counts towards your limit and that if a fish is immediately released it does not count towards your bag limit.
It does not say that releasing a fish from your live well is illegal. Which means that a fish can be released from your livewell as long as you count that fish towards your daily bag limit.
Reply by: skiman Posted: Mar. 22, 4:46:03 PM Points: 1197
shiver...the key words are "released immediately." While I can understand your wife wanting to release a fish she didn't want to keep, once in your possession, (in the live well), it becomes part of your bag limit. I know it doesn't make much sense if the fish is alive, but it is the rule.
Reply by: dallasdb Posted: Mar. 22, 4:57:32 PM Points: 203
I called CPW and they said that if you do not release the fish right away you are supposed to keep it. If it's on a stringer or in a livewell, etc you should not release it if you decide you don't want it later even if it is alive. The gentleman that answered the phone went and asked a second person to verify and they both said the same thing but they could not tell me where this was explicit in the regs.
Reply by: wingman13 Posted: Mar. 22, 8:42:18 PM Points: 635
The more I've looked into it, the more I see it's really all in the wording. Shiver, I owe you an apology, as I see you have the wording figured out :-) I always thought that in the livewell = possession & bag limit, but you are correct that no where does it state fish may not be released back into the water, once it has been kept. Your trout "upgrade" example explains it best!
Reply by: Fordo Posted: Mar. 22, 9:15:56 PM Points: 47
Looks like the guy realized he made a mistake and took down the Vid from Youtube. maybe the positive outcome of the video is that he is more conscious about fish handling and following the rules. And it defanitly fueled awareness and introspect to the interpretation of the regs by many of us, including the guys at the CPW. Great job by Tubejig for posting, and dallasb ans skiman for getting on the phone with those guys. maybe next years regs will be better laid out because of this
Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Mar. 23, 9:54:03 AM Points: 2904
Dakota, while I understand that laws have to be made for the lowest common denominator, and people will always try and find ways to manipulate the system, if my wife or I had gotten a ticket for releasing that bass, I'd have fought it. I can't imagine the intent of the law is to make people keep fish in every situation.
Reply by: skiman Posted: Mar. 23, 10:50:05 AM Points: 1197
I received a phone call this morning from Bob Thompson, chief LEO for CPW. The answer he gave was quite clear. Once you put a fish on a stringer, in a container or live well, it becomes part of your daily bag limit and cannot be released at a later time. Once again, the rules say if the fish is released IMMEDIATELY, it doesn't count toward your bag or possession. Now, you are free to interpret this any way you want, but I don't think saying "the law doesn't exist" is valid. I think I will take officer Thompson's explanation over anyone else's.
Reply by: polka Posted: Mar. 23, 12:17:14 PM Points: 35
This is a great post. And hope lots of people are looking at this. A lot of people fishing are very unclear about this topic. These laws in the regs are almost impossible to enforce. How does anyone know that you released a nice healthy fish out of your live-well unless the Law is consistently spying on you will a telescope.
But people reading this now will be aware that releasing healthy fish out of your live-well is illegal now.
Reply by: shiverfix Posted: Mar. 23, 1:06:00 PM Points: 2904
skiman, thanks for the work you did on this, and getting it directly from the horse's mouth, as it were. I always try to make sure I follow the rules. I would never cull to keep another fish. However, if I were in the situation I described before with my wife, I wouldn't hesitate to let the fish go.
The "law" being discussed by the officers is still being inferred from the language. It isn't expressly in the language. This is a perfect example of the gap between black letter law and it's enforcers. Ambiguous language such as this is what sparks discussion and I'm glad we had such an informative back and forth.
Just for my own closure I took a couple of minutes to determined the actual statute that governs this issue. It appears to be equally ambigious and also fails to state that it is illegal to return a fish to the water after it is placed in a livewell:
"Any fish caught and placed on a stringer, in a container or in a live well, or not returned to the water immediately, will be counted as part of the established daily bag or possession limit. Any fish taken and subsequently smoked, canned, frozen or otherwise preserved for consumption is considered part of the established possession limit until it is consumed."
Thanks again for everyone that took the initiative to call local officers to hear their interpretation. Though even with that, I still believe they are incorrect. If the intention of this provision was to prohibit individuals from releasing a fish after it has been placed in a live well, then the drafters failed to achieve that goal.
Reply by: skiman Posted: Mar. 23, 1:45:24 PM Points: 1197
Dakota, If you understood the law, you would know that not all laws, (regs), are black and white with some exceptions, (ie. Domestic Violence laws.) The reason for this is to allow some flexibility when it comes to enforcement. While I can see your logic, it doesn't change the fact that the live well rule is in effect. Whether or not one chooses to accept that fact is a matter of personal choice. The bottom line is that you have disregarded the rules by letting a fish go after you have placed it in a live well. If that is your choice, then so be it. Please don't try to justify your opinion by saying it's not spelled out in the regs. Good luck with your argument.
I know the law and I know how laws operate. I practice the law every single day, as it's what I do for a living. When a regulatory agency seeks to prohibit an act or conduct, it expressly does so. Here, in this instance they have not. That is a fact, not an opinion or any sort of justification.
This was all brought up as a hypothetical, not a reality.
The only opinion I gave was regarding what I would do if faced with being ticketed for a violation of this regulation. Which was I would fight it, and believe that I would likely win it.
Reply by: Smelly Posted: Mar. 23, 3:43:32 PM Points: 13283
Gee , All I did was ask a simple question!
Dakota and Shiv. Your points are absolutely valid. Compared to other states, CO. tends to leave a lot of "Gray Area" in their regulations. I can tell you that in the 30+ years I have lived here, this law has always been interpreted the way I and others see it .And when you ask an officer. Their response falls in this line. Thanks everybody for going the extra distance on this. Shows you ALL care !!
Dallas also brought up the "party fishing " thing. I witnessed this scenario play out next to me at G.M. years ago. The officer was clear. Your limit is "YOUR" limit. It's a violation to " help" another fisherman. You can donate fish from Your limit. You CANNOT exceed it and a donation does not reduce your harvest count . Definite infraction !
As far as our YouTube " celebrities ". Call their "culling" practices questionable. And I would bet most officers would cite them for it. No question about their "Fish Handling " practices. And NO EXCUSE for it !Both a net and a Leatherman could be seen in the Video. My guess is TOO dam LAZY to use them.
And let's not forget. Tubejig Started This!!!
Thank You Tubejig !!! This has been a very informative thread. Lots of opinions. Everybody " Played Nice". THIS ! Makes fishexplorer a cool place to 'Hang Out ".
P.S. If anybody is wondering. Yeah , Out of popcorn AGAIN!!!
Reply by: Tubejig Posted: Mar. 23, 6:01:23 PM Points: 434
All I have to say is WOW! When I posted this, I was just hoping to get some clarity on the bag and possession limits for that particular body of water. What others were able to observe and critique from his video opened our eyes to some other legal and ethical issues! Thank you all for your contributions, the phone calls to CPW, and your different interpretation of the rules. Hopefully CPW will view this thread and make some changes. Tightlines all!